About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donald, I was only half-serious. There are some self-styled Objectivists who will denounce anybody who deviates in any way from what they view as rational conduct. Where I come from, they're called Randroids. My usual response to them is that if Ayn Rand isn't like it, she can drag herself out of her grave and tell me so in person. :)

Not being a Randroid myself, I see nothing wrong with having pets. I love cats myself; they're amusing and cuddly and pretty.

Post 21

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, that's what I was hoping ;)

I almost feel sorry for 'droids. Rand was a novelist/philosopher, not a god or seer by any means. Her modernization of Aristotelian principles are phenomenal, but to have her views be the definitive word on anything outside of philosophy is silly. Her smoking would be a great example of this. I think what most forget is that she is ultimately employing Aristotle's concept of essence in that she herself said that her heroes were the ideal, not necessarily the real.

Post 22

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 2:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's wrong with having a pet? The reason why we have them is because we can empathize with them on some level (think the Muttnik principle), they offer companionship, an can bring mutual enjoyment. Of course, this is only possible with certain animals (usually the fluffy, big cute eyed variety). The animal has to be adapted to domesticity, no elephants, please. The animal has to be able to live as it's nature commands, and you have to be able to live with such commands (no, Mr. Snake, we can't eat the baby, that's not very nice...duh!). And you have to clean up after it. And feed it. And so on.
I do not think it's cool to have birds, though, if they aren't allowed to fly. Imagine being grounded with such a gift like flight.
Heh, I always thought it was significant that Rand had a cat and not a dog. Dogs are too pack-oriented social herd followers. (Still like em, though.) Cats seem like the Objectivist mascot.

Post 23

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cats do seem like the perfect Objectivist pet... each of you knows what you're giving/getting from the relationship and you bond only when it's worthwhile for both of you.

Granted up til I met Amy I was pretty much a dog person my whole life, but after 2 years living with her cat I'm glad that I don't get the constant guilt trips that come with owning a dog (as much as I love em).

---Landon


Post 24

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have three dogs. Well, I have one - Charlie. Tika seems to like us equally, and Ella much prefers my wife to me.

Tika
Charlie
Ella

Dogs are great pets. Mind you, so are cats (I was solely a cat person myself for years). It just depends on what you want from a pet ... I liken cats to flatmates, and dogs to children.

Except that dogs are cleaner than children. And cheaper. And more useful.

:-)

Post 25

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dogs are servile, dependent beings - cats are independent....  go away for four days, and the dog, left alone, is neurotic - the cat, just glad to see you again...

Post 26

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert-

Dogs are servile, dependent beings - cats are independent....  go away for four days, and the dog, left alone, is neurotic - the cat, just glad to see you again...
From what I've experience with cats, go away for a week and they still don't give a shit whether you are around or not.


Post 27

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not my cat.  He always greets me with a little meow (dirrect translation to english: ME NOW!) whenever I've been away from him for a while.

Post 28

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - cats are very judgmental - perhaps Jody was judged and found wanting...

Post 29

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Could be. Ironically Amy said she knew I was the one when her (now our) cat took kindly to me.

---Landon


Post 30

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks guys, now I have a complex.

Post 31

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Servile and dependent, damn right. The perfect Objectivist pet is the Vizsla. She finds the bird, she points the bird, you flush and shoot the bird, she retrieves the bird to you, repeat. (Sorry Marcus Serravillo!) We also have a cat. She gets pointed about a dozen times a day; you can imagine how that goes over.

Jon


Post 32

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew,

Fear not, I am no Randroid. If I were, then I could not be an Objectivist. The fate of my cat's comfort did not hang on the decision of whether or not pets fit into Objectivist philosophy. As I think I've mentioned, it was not a question of "whether" but of "why".

Joe,

Haha! Yes, I do think cats should be the Objectivist mascots.



Post 33

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tania,

1. Benevolence isn't necessarily irrational. Just as valuing art, or collecting stamps, or solving jigsaw puzzles isn't irrational but ennobling recreation or "play", helping people at personal expense could no more be irrational. In fact there are some "unworthy" people that could be inspired to respect themselves and others, if someone they respected put faith in them. People are nonlinear in that regard; an honest man distrusted my be encouraged to commit an opportunistic crime, while a dishonest/pragmatic man may be encouraged not to disappoint someone who trust them.

2. ID projection - I didn't mean to imply you didn't love yourself. Yet there are some (I've heard, single-source, that often PETA-terrorists were abused children, and attempt to be "Batman" as it were, by attacking medical labs, et).

3. You wrote: "I am not trying to understand only my own instincts, I am trying to crack the nature/functional purpose of that instinct in general. That is why this is, in many ways, a philosophical issue.".

Loving cute, furry animals is indeed instinctive. An account (Cialdini, "Influence"):

"Turkey mothers are good mothers-loving, watchful, and protective. They spend much of their time tending, warming, cleaning and huddling the young beneath them...But there is something odd about their method. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks...If a chick(doesn't) ... mother will ignore or sometimes kill it...W.M. Fox...(did) an experiment involving a mother turkey and a stuffed polecat. For a mother turkey, a polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage...even a stuffed model of a polecat, ...received an immediate and furious attack. When, however, the same stuffed replica carried inside it a small recorder that played the "cheep-cheep" sound of baby turkeys, the mother not only accepted the oncoming polecat but gathered it underneath her. When the machine was turned off, the poleat model against drew a vicious attack."

Our instincts and primal drives motivate us to do "irrational" things, in a context which doesn't recognize our nature as rational-animals. The modern, atheist context which insults man for being part animal and not a disembodied intellect, rather than celebrates man as nature's greatest ongoing work-in-progress to date.

4. "First of all, why would an Objectivist wonder what is normal?"

It could be argued the only "Objectivists" are Rand, Peikoff, and anyone that absolutely adheres to their formal philosophy. So I read the question as "what would Rand do". If you phrased the question as, "Am I irrational? What is the value in, apparently altruisticaly, spending time and money to make an animal feel good"? I wouldn't have assume you were trying to be like someone else. There is on ongoing thread about "cult" Objectivism. A "Randriod" would ask, "how can I be like Rand"? Sorry for the offense.

5. How do you know they are "normal"?

If most people are altruistic, and you aspire and become more rationaly egoistic, are you not becoming "abnormal" and "deviant", even if more rational?

6. "if an Objectivist should ask, why has an Objectivist taken the time to answer?"

We are here, and I enjoy the discourse. I like finding out when I'm wrong, and occasionaly venting my wrath on the pervasive evil that poisons minds. Its cognitive exercise. Perhaps I'll meet some friends.

7. Taking license to re-phrase the question I've asked myself after reading VOS, and addressing its premise, since Rand answers our cultural misconceptions about altruism and selfishness:

"Am I irrational? What is the value in, apparently altruisticaly, spending time and money to make an animal feel good"?

The premises (which Rand addresses in VOS):

1. Its evil to be selfish; selfish people use and abuse others because to be perfectly rational, you would use other living things as means to your ends, rather than honoring them as ends in themselves.

The fallacy here is equating selfishness with sacrificing others to self. Rational beings recognize living organisms are ends in themselves, with independent wills.

2. Since selfish people hurt and abuse others, its good people that are altruistic; they take consider others before themselves.

The fallacy here is that altruism is stable, leading to the good. It isn't. It plunders the best, rewards the best cheaters, ruins everyones sense-of-life, and results in despotism and war.

Rand said altruistic sacrifice is giving the neighbors child a cake, while yours go hungry. Being selfish is feeding your own children while you go hungry, because seeing them happy is of greater value to you than being fed yourself. Rational animals understand their animal nature to love and enjoy other animals.

Scott

Post 34

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

1. I don’t like the word “benevolence”; can we say “actions intended to aid others” instead? I think that serves our purpose, and no, I would never call that irrational in essence. We can often help others and thus help society and thus indirectly help ourselves.

You say: “In fact there are some "unworthy" people that could be inspired to respect themselves and others, if someone they respected put faith in them.”

But by my definition, these WOULD be worthy people. I never assume someone is not worth my effort unless the person gives me good reason to think so.

3. The turkey example only illustrates parental instincts. As far as I know, turkeys do not have pets. (As a complete aside – did you know that many people actually keep turkeys as pets?? Eek. I was nearly attacked by one when I was very little.)

You write: “Our instincts and primal drives motivate us to do "irrational" things, in a context which doesn't recognize our nature as rational-animals.”

Hmm…I don’t think that our instincts and our minds are often in conflict with one another. Can you give me an example?

Here’s the conclusion I came to as far as pets are concerned:
We, as humans, love animals because we love life, and animals represent life in its rawest form since all animals want to live. People who hate themselves often abuse animals. This probably means that (a) they resent life and thus all living things, and (b) they need to gain a sense of power/control. This isn’t a complete explanation for animal abuse but a sufficient one for our purposes.
We, as social and affectionate creatures, also look to animals for emotional warmth, companionship, loyalty, etc. But this aspect of it does not interest me too much because it is fairly simple and needs little analysis.
Lastly, I think that we feel a responsibility to protect animals (and humans) because they can all be useful to us. This probably happens on an unconscious level, and is an instinct that benefits people as a whole, rather than just the individual. This instinct probably led to the domestication of animals and thus, all of the benefits that we’ve reaped from the practice.

4. You’ve misquoted me. I wrote: “Why WOULDN'T an Objectivist wonder what is normal?” not “why would he?”

You say: “Sorry for the offense.” – I assure you, none taken.

5. You write: “How do you know [your actions] are "normal"?”

The word normal is obviously very vague. I am not using it in terms of society’s or popular norms. I generally consider my actions normal because they are in accordance with what I have accepted, thru logic, as being normal (or functional). If someone finds my logic flawed then he will not think my actions normal. But as long as they make sense to me, who is, after all, the ultimate judge of my own actions, then I see them as being normal. When I feel things I cannot explain – which does not happen often – I accept that what I’m feeling is probably normal, since the fact that I am “normal” is my basic premise. Then I go on to analyze the feeling.

Do you find that abnormal? :-)

Tania


Post 35

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 5:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tania,

"You write: “Our instincts and primal drives motivate us to do "irrational" things, in a context which doesn't recognize our nature as rational-animals.

Hmm I dont think that our instincts and our minds are often in conflict with one another. Can you give me an example?"

If not instincts, surely primal-drives. As babies we begin life with no concept of defered gratification. Children desire destructive things to play with all the time, as do adults to "enjoy".

"Here’s the conclusion I came to as far as pets are concerned:
We, as humans, love animals because we love life, and animals represent life in its rawest form since all animals want to live. People who hate themselves often abuse animals. This probably means that (a) they resent life and thus all living things, and (b) they need to gain a sense of power/control."

I agree with the power & control part. Children though no doubt learn it from peers, trying to outdo each other in cruelty, to prove how worthy they are to dominate, and unworthy to be dominated.

"We, as social and affectionate creatures, also look to animals for emotional warmth, companionship, loyalty, etc. But this aspect of it does not interest me too much because it is fairly simple and needs little analysis."

The book (Influence) I referenced, like a lot of psychology, is somewhat depressing because it depicts people as mechanisms or animals. Being about advertising, its depicts people as not much better off than turkeys having their "buy" buttons pushed.

I'm tempted to quote Rand & Peikoff on Freud, perhaps later. Are they any more humerous anywhere than when they berate Freud's sense of life, modern nihilistic culture and naturalism?

Scott

Post 36

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I presume when you speak of turkeys, you refer to the domestic ones - the classic case of being 'dumbed down', for rest assured, the wild ones I doubt would ever accept the polcat, no matter how many peeps it emitted...

As for what is normal - remember, there is a difference between 'normal' and 'norm', for this is often overlooked... normal is biological, and has a Bell curve, and spans a wide range, all which falls within the concept of normalcy - it is the diversity factor... norm, however, is a cultural aspect, congruency within a narrow group, sameness in otherwords...


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.